If Rush were being rejected for membership solely on the basis of his race, religion, sexual orientation, or even the fact that he is an overweight, physically unattractive man, then I would agree with you.

But of course that’s not the case at all. Rush is being rejected for public statements he has made and a public persona that he has maintained for years that routinely casts aspersions on black Americans. (and there’s plenty of evidence of Rush’s MO even without the two dubious quotes… anyone remember a certain school bus fight earlier this year?)

The owners presumably feel comes with baggage that would reflect poorly on their industry. Particularly given the fact that the industry in question hires a number of highly paid, highly catered-to athletes who find Rush’s on-air persona offensive for some reason.

Why? Limbaugh is the only prominent racist drug addict in the group. He’s the one who’d be bad for business.

And please stop your whining. Sharpton and Jackson carry very little weight in American discourse these days. John Irsay had a hell of a lot more to do with it.

Rush got torpedoed, for the nth time, because he’s a racist, drug-addicted bigot. Period. And outside of his own radio show, America hates him.

I understand that and I don’t disagree with it. If the NFL thinks he’d be very bad for business and they don’t want the bad publicity, then they can reject an offer from the whole group that was going to bid on the franchise. Dave Checketts can back out on his offer to Limbaugh to join his bidding group if he doesn’t want the headaches and the controversy surrounding having Limbaugh after first telling him everything was cool in the beginning, too. I understand all about that, and don’t have a problem with that aspect, even though Checketts is a coward. But a shakedown occurred here, and Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are shakedown artists who specialize in it. If you’re fine with their methodologies and think they fit in well with the free enterprise system in America, that businesses will relent and cave in to Sharpton’s and Jackson’s demands along racial lines for fear of bad publicity and threats of boycotts, then that’s where you and I disagree.

What you are condoning is the same thing as a country club deciding certain people would be bad for their ‘business’, however that club defines and decides what is ‘business’, without stating it outright when they reject a potential applicant for membership. I know what your response is going to be, but as you’ve argued it here, it is no different.

It’s a business. And a bigot like Rush is bad for business.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2009/10/17/2009-10-17_lupica_rushed_out_of_the_club.html

“Rush Limbaugh is always an advocate of a robust free-enterprise system, as it relates from health care to everything else. Only now he squeals because the same free-enterprise system rejects him as a possible owner of the St. Louis Rams football team.”

Actually, the racist, drug-addicted Chairman of the GOP is trying to argue that liberals blocked him, not the NFL ownership itself and guys like the owner of the Colts.

Which is a complete lie, but we are talking about Republican.

Jaim is also cluelessly unaware of what a shakedown is and what noted shakedown artists do for their livings.

Over at Daily Beast, Conor Friedersdorft has a good piece examining why it’s impossible to take seriously Rush Limbaugh’s whining about how the ‘other side’ always injects race into the debate, when Limbaugh himself has spent 2009 pretty much doing nothing but that:
– Spam-boy Indeed

No Indeed, fafaroo said that. Aren’t you paying attention to the thread? You need to credit fafaroo for that.

Frankly Mr. Limbaugh, if you don’t like it then get the hell out…..
–Jaim Galt

Hahahhhahahaha!!!!!!

My day is already now complete.

“C’mon, Mr. Limbaugh. Join me.”

Just askin’

“This is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we’re going to have,” Limbaugh said Wednesday, shortly before his bid to become a limited partner in the St. Louis Rams was terminated.

By that standard, the decision to dump Limbaugh says that in today’s America, regardless of wealth or fame, divisive racial rhetoric can place some things out of reach.

“This reflects where we’re moving in an ethical nature,” said Dan Lebowitz, executive director of the Center for Sports and Society at Northeastern University.

“The league has 78 percent African-American players,” Lebowitz said. “Do you bring in someone who has made racist statements to own a team that’s largely made up of players the owner has made slurring statements about?” …

Limbaugh insists that he is not racist, and that comments such as one from a 2007 transcript on his Web site — “The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it” — have been twisted by his liberal critics, and sometimes flat-out fabricated. …

Harry Edwards, a sociologist who studies black athletes and has consulted for several pro teams, said Limbaugh’s failed effort to become an NFL owner shows how American society regulates itself.

“The system works,” he said. “We are far from what we were 20 years ago or 30 years ago or 40 years ago. We have an African-American family in the White House.

“Does that mean we don’t have intense countercurrents of racist sentiments in American society? Absolutely not. But we are moving in the right direction and managing those hot spots and flare-ups such as the Limbaugh bid that America has to manage to continue its momentum.”

Pro football has largely overcome its own difficult racial past, which included resegregation of the league from 1934-46 and longtime barriers that kept blacks out of the quarterback and head coaching positions.

“The NFL has been a model for America’s democracy and growth,” said the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who was a college quarterback at North Carolina A&T. “The playing field is even, the rules are public, the goals are clear, the referees are fair. That’s America at its best.”

That history probably played a role in keeping Limbaugh out, said Alexander Wolff, a Sports Illustrated writer and author of a recent article on Kenny Washington, who broke the NFL color barrier in 1946.

“Because it’s been such a painful journey for the NFL, and the end of that journey has come so very recently, there’s a really heightened consciousness,” he said.

“They have come to terms, to a great extent, with their history.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-us-limbaugh-race-ana,0,794631.story

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704322004574477021697942920.html

“When Mr. Goodell was asked about me, he suggested that my 2003 comment criticizing the media’s coverage of Donovan McNabb—in which I said the media was cheerleading Mr. McNabb because they wanted a successful black quarterback—fell short of the NFL’s “high standard.” High standard? Half a decade later, the media would behave the same way about the presidential candidacy of Mr. Obama.”

The shithead doesn’t even have the class to apologize for slurring McNabb, and goes on to slur the president of our country.

Frankly Mr. Limbaugh, if you don’t like it then get the hell out you whiny little drug-addicted baby.

The talker takes to the friendly pages of the WSJ today to explain why being rejected by the NFL reflects poorly on everyone else but him and the brand of hate speech he’s perfected.

And get this, it’s all Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson’s fault! They totally hypnotized NFL owners, players (both current and former) and union reps into rejecting the Limbaugh offer. I mean, who knew? Sharpton and Jackson, who both belatedly wrote letters to the NFL’s commissioner’s office in opposition to Limbaugh, apparently have super-human powers over not only African-American NFL players, but the all white, country club owners of the NFL.

Is there nothing Sharpton and Jackson can’t accomplish?

And of course Limbaugh’s still steamed about a couple race-baiting quotes that were attributed to him and which he claims he never said. Limbaugh conveniently believes they’re the entire reason the NFL told him to get lost and frankly, Rush is dismayed:

I never said I supported slavery and I never praised James Earl Ray. How sick would that be?

How sick would that be? It would be about as sick as making this comment, which Limbaugh quite clearly did:

“We are being told that we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles … because his father was black.”

Rush wanted to be an NFL owner. He wanted to be part of that super-exclusive, Masters of the Universe club, but the NFL said no. In fact, his own investor partners threw him under the bus. Now Limbaugh’s in permanent pout mode and he, of course, is completely blameless.

Hey Rush, enjoy the rest of the NFL season.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910170004

Over at Daily Beast, Conor Friedersdorft has a good piece examining why it’s impossible to take seriously Rush Limbaugh’s whining about how the ‘other side’ always injects race into the debate, when Limbaugh himself has spent 2009 pretty much doing nothing but that:

It is also understandable that a professional sports league wouldn’t want to associate itself with someone who so frequently plays the race card. That doesn’t mean Mr. Limbaugh is a racist. I take him at his word that he isn’t. He is merely a racial provocateur whose ire at being called a racist doesn’t prevent him from affixing the label to others with stunning frequency.

Limbaugh’s defense is part of the emerge, albeit bizarre, right-wing view that conservatives are allowed to do and say whatever they want under the guise of political debate, but nobody–nobody–is allowed to hold those words against them. Suddenly, in the far-right corners of the political spectrum, “free speech” means never being held responsible for anything you say.

So when Limbaugh spends the first eight months of Obama’s first term relentlessly, and divisively, injecting race into every day’s debate, he can never be labeled a race-baiter. That’s an attack on his right to free speech.

The NFL (and the real world) begs to differ.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910170003

Actually, the racist, drug-addicted Chairman of the GOP is trying to argue that liberals blocked him, not the NFL ownership itself and guys like the owner of the Colts.

Which is a complete lie, but we are talking about Republican.

Keep up the good work, Dennis. We couldn’t ask for a better representative of modern conservatism, a guy who can’t even understand why the Limbaugh comments on McNabb’s ability are not only plainly racist, but also more than enough evidence that he has no business owning an NFL franchise.

And that’s just for starters. “Take the bone out of your nose,” “Barack Halfbama,” “Barack the Magic Negro,” NFL games as “bloods versus crips,” etc.

Please, don’t stop. With every breath you are a living example of the failure that is the GOP. I’m half surprised George Soros isn’t cutting you a check every time you post.

The irony is that now Rush will attack the rich, conservative NFL owners on his show, furthering the split between the leadership of the GOP and the people with the money it runs on.

Right-Wing Anti-Anti-Racism

If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand times, but it’s continually striking how thoroughly defined modern American conservatism is by opposition to opposition to racism. Isaac Chotiner observes a National Review article chuckling over the fact that John Derbyshire’s bigotry discomfits liberals while Adam Server brings us folks who wouldn’t necessary make the kind of racist statements Rush Limbaugh makes nonetheless circling the wagons to defend him from his critics.

Next time Republican strategists are wondering why Michael Steele’s embrace of hip slang hasn’t brought black people flocking to their doors, conservatives might want to consider some of this behavior. I suspect it’s not helping the right with its endless quest to woo Jews, either.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/10/right-wing-anti-anti-racism.php

What up!

The Conservative Rules Of Racism.

Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana County justice of the peace, refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of “concern” for the children they might have. Of course, he’s not a racist:

“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”

“Piles of black friends.” What a curious choice of words.

Patrick Lanzo, the Georgia restaurant owner who regularly uses the word “nigger” in expressing his political views on a sign outside his establishment, isn’t a racist either. His most recent sign said: “Obama’s plan for health-care: Nigger rig it.”

Despite the sign, Lanzo said he’s not a racist.

He said he’s just against what he calls a “sub standard healthcare plan,” which he said President Obama is trying to push through.

Ta-Nehisi Coates writes, “There aren’t any racists in America.” Well that’s not true. What about Sonia Sotomayor, or the people who opposed Rush Limbaugh owning the Rams? The first rule of racism is that there are no racists, the second rule of racism is that all racists are liberals.

Incidentally, yesterday Michelle Malkin went nuts on this Ben Smith story crediting the president with making interracial marriage somewhat more acceptable, and explained that the only people who oppose interracial marriages are liberal (natch). Of course, in her lifelong quest to adhere to the Bender Theory of Discrimination, most of the links she provided were of people criticizing her for her interracial marriage. (Just in case it isn’t clear from the fact that I happen to be the child of an interracial marriage, I think the things people said about her are disgusting.)

Oddly enough though, Malkin didn’t criticize her buddy, conservative blogger Robert Stacy McCain, who once complained that “the media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion.”

At the time, McCain helpfully explained that “THIS IS NOT RACISM.” Of course not, because there are no racists in America and only liberals are racist.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=10&year=2009&base_name=the_conservative_rules_of_raci

Word.

(Good links there too. And check out Bender’s Theory.)